It works poorly.
OK, specifics. Say you're a 8th level sorcerer who knows glitterdust and has up to 4th level spell slots available, and you have the heighten spell feat. You can cast glitterdust with a 2nd level spell slot without using the feat; the Will save DC is 12 + your Cha bonus. Or you can cast it as a 3rd level spell via heighten spell (taking a full-round action to do so) and the save DC becomes 13 + Cha, or as a 4th with save DC 14 + Cha.
You're often going to be better to cast actual 3rd or 4th level spells with those spell slots if you know good 3rd/4th level spells, heighten spell just makes the lower level spells have a better save DC without otherwise improving the effect.
In other words the only thing that changes is the save DC, the spell slot used, and the spell level where that matters directly - there are a few spells/effects which do, like globe of invulnerability which only stops spells of 4th level or below. A glitterdust heightened to 5th level would get thru that.
|
It works as it is meant to work. It raises the effective level of a spell, without changing other parameters. So it is useful to defeat things like Globe of Invulnerability or getting a Light spell that can cancel Deeper Darkness or increase the DC of a spell, but it doesn't give any other benefits. A level 5 Fireball is still limited to 10d6 of damage, a level 5 Greater Magic Weapon still lasts 1 hour/level, and so on.
The utility is situational, in the right conditions it is very good, but it works better for a spontaneous spellcaster than someone that memorizes spells.
^Except that a spontaneous caster normally has to take longer to cast a spell when they heighten it (usually changes Standard Action cast to Full-Round Action), which really hurts their action economy (as with all other metamagic other than Quicken Spell). Not so bad if you are in a situation where you can take the extra time, but bad if you are in a combat in which every action matters.
|
|
^Except that a spontaneous caster normally has to take longer to cast a spell when they heighten it (usually changes Standard Action cast to Full-Round Action), which really hurts their action economy (as with all other metamagic other than Quicken Spell). Not so bad if you are in a situation where you can take the extra time, but bad if you are in a combat in which every action matters.
True. But it can't be made into a metamagic rod, AFAIK, so a prepared caster often end preparing hightened spells that he doesn't need.
|
|
To go off on a bit of a tangent, is there any good reason other metamagic feats shouldn't include Heighten as part of their package? So for instance an Empowered Fireball spell would count as a 5th level spell in all ways.
Yes, there is a good reason: TNSTAAFL.
In Pathfinder/3.X increasing the DC of 1 school of magic by 1 cost 1 feat.
Giving all metamagic the ability to increase all schools of magic by 1-4 for free besides be effect of the metamagic feat would be a free lunch.
To add to what Diego Rossi said:
Heighten Spell only affects itself. It is neither influenced by the spell-slot level adjustments of other metamagics, nor does it directly influence other metamagics.
It works like this:
1) Select Heighten as first metamagic with a fixed increase and apply this increase to spell level and spell-slot level.
2) Add other metamagic feats as desired and raise the spell-slot level further; this does not increase the spell level.
Example with Fireball:
1) Heightened Spell +3: Fireball is now a 6th-level spell (DC = 10 +6 +your spellcasting modifier) and requires a 6th-level spell-slot.
2) Empowered Spell: Fireball is still a 6th-level spell, but requires an 8th-level spell-slot.
Heightened spells get higher DCs and are treated as higher level spells by other spells and abilities. However, actual higher level spell are likely more powerful.
Blasting is not a good way to make the case for/against Heightened Spell. Obviously Empowered or Maximized Spell are better choices for blasters, just like Extended is for buffers, Threnodic for enchanters, and so on.
Metamagics have to be evaluated on where they can be used properly, and then compared to other options in that area: Empowered Spell is great for a blaster, but a poor choice for an enchanter.
So, as avr and Diego already pointed out, there are some effects that are tied to spell level, and that's where Heightened Spell can make a difference. Most of these are usually unpredictable, so spontaneous casters are much more likely to use Heightened Spell, true.
For example, a higher spell level allows you to penetrate certain abjurations (e.g. Globe of Invulnerability), to use improved counterspell effectively or to summon stronger Guardian Spirits. These are usually utilized only by very specialized builds (e.g. counterspelling in general is dreadfully inefficient), and unless you intend to do such a build, Heightened is wasted.
Example of such a build: Sorcerer with Improved Counterspell (stronger option: Ordered Mind), who knows one cantrip of every spell school, and optionally some buffing feats (Equipment Trick: Sunrod/Mirror, False Focus). Then you could use your Heightened cantrips to counter any spell thrown at you, e.g. a Heightened+4 Light cantrip can counterspell a Fireball; this consumes a 4th-level spell slot, reduced by 1 each for Ordered Mind, (half) a dose of Djezet, and a Sunrod, to a minimum of using a 1st-level spell-slot to counter the Fireball. In the end you could even counterspell the mightiest spell of all, Wish, with a Heightened version of the weakest spell of all, Prestidigitation, which is quite poetic. :)
|
|
I know how metamagic works, I'm asking if there is any good reason you couldn't get rid of Heighten Spell and just let other metamagic feats increase spell level in all respects. As pointed out, metamagiced spells are rarely any better than, or even as good as, an actual spell of a given level.
As I said, because you are giving a free gift to the guy that is taking the metamagic feat.
It is like asking why when you get a weapon proficiency you don't get weapon focus with that weapon or class of weapons.If that isn't a reason for you and you are the GM, the spellcasters in your group will be happy.
*Shrugs*
I don't see why not. I think there were too many magic item creation feats, so I reduced it to just consumables and permanent magic items. There aren't many lot of benefits for owning all 8 magic item creation feats instead of just 1 or 2.
Not a great paragon in my eyes. Magic items creation is limited mostly by time and money. Players generally take Craft wondrous items as it is the most used feat. They take some of the others if they have available feats, but the benefit is way smaller.
Getting a free Heighten effect when you use a metamagic is a serious benefit every time you use a spell.
I know how metamagic works, I'm asking if there is any good reason you couldn't get rid of Heighten Spell and just let other metamagic feats increase spell level in all respects. As pointed out, metamagiced spells are rarely any better than, or even as good as, an actual spell of a given level.
Empower Spell would lock you into an increase by 2 spell levels. The current Heighten Spell is more flexible than that. Yup, you might have other metamagic feats too, but not necessarily cover all interesting spell level increases. And without change not every metamagic feat can be applied to every spell.
But personally I consider Diego's argument good enough already: Casters shouldn't get +x DC on top of what metamagic already does. It's not just a strong boost worth multiple feats. It also makes the original metamagic effect more powerful, because it's more likely to apply. An empowered fireball with the DC of a 5th-level spell would render most actual 5th-level fire damage spells obsolete. And let's not even think about Dazing Spell with high DC...
Another thing is: An actual high-level spell of similar function might exist, but this doesn't mean you have access to it right now.
Metamagic is good as it is IMO. It's situationally useful, so a player (or GM) usually has to think instead of just applying it.
I wouldn't argue for Bjørn's boost to metamagic either. If nothing else it'd make persistent spell far too good; I've played an arcane bloodline sorcerer with the existing version of persistent spell and it does a reasonable job of keeping some lower level spells relevant.
The problem is that heighten spell is not worth a feat, and in most situations not worth using if you got it for free. The heightened continual flame which Firebug mentions requires that there be mathematically-challenged NPCs to provide it as it's far too narrow a use for it to be worth a feat to a PC.
I wouldn't recommend most Metamagic giving free Heighten Spell, except that I would recommend it for Intensified Spell, which is what Pathfinder 2nd Edition basically does (except there you HAVE to Heighten Spell in order to get any more powerful effect, no matter how high level you are -- no efficiency boost for being a higher level caster).
|
|
I wouldn't argue for Bjørn's boost to metamagic either. If nothing else it'd make persistent spell far too good; I've played an arcane bloodline sorcerer with the existing version of persistent spell and it does a reasonable job of keeping some lower level spells relevant.
The problem is that heighten spell is not worth a feat, and in most situations not worth using if you got it for free. The heightened continual flame which Firebug mentions requires that there be mathematically-challenged NPCs to provide it as it's far too narrow a use for it to be worth a feat to a PC.
SoD and SoS spells are supposedly balanced around the DC of the save you need to resist them. Your argument boil down to "increasing the DC don't require a feat, only the spell slot". I disagree, but everyone is free to do has him/her like at is table.
SoD and SoS spells are supposedly balanced around the DC of the save you need to resist them. Your argument boil down to "increasing the DC don't require a feat, only the spell slot". I disagree, but everyone is free to do has him/her like at is table.
The DC of the save is only one part of the balance. There's also the effect of the spell - you don't get save-or-dies at 1st level, you don't get save or be shaken on a 9th level spell. If you can cast the doom spell (Cleric 1) as a 9th level spell (DC 19+casting mod), using a 9th level spell slot, with no other changes is that a good use of that spell slot? I'd argue not. Your mileage apparently varies.
Edit: and to be clear my previous post argued against Bjørn's idea of letting other metamagic feats increase the save DC in addition to their other effects.
As pointed out, metamagiced spells are rarely any better than, or even as good as, an actual spell of a given level.
No, heightened spells are rarely better than spells of the 'target' spell level. The same is not true for other metamagic feats!
The last thing Pathfinder needs is a Dazing Fireball with the DC of a 6th level spell.
|
|
SoD and SoS spells are supposedly balanced around the DC of the save you need to resist them. Your argument boil down to "increasing the DC don't require a feat, only the spell slot". I disagree, but everyone is free to do has him/her like at is table.The DC of the save is only one part of the balance. There's also the effect of the spell - you don't get save-or-dies at 1st level, you don't get save or be shaken on a 9th level spell. If you can cast the doom spell (Cleric 1) as a 9th level spell (DC 19+casting mod), using a 9th level spell slot, with no other changes is that a good use of that spell slot? I'd argue not. Your mileage apparently varies.
Edit: and to be clear my previous post argued against Bjørn's idea of letting other metamagic feats increase the save DC in addition to their other effects.
Yes, it was clear.
I know that often it is not advantageous to use Heighten. But Enlarge isn't useful on a spell that hasn't a range of close, medium, or long, widen is useless if the spell isn't burst, emanation, or spread-shaped spell and so on and on. My point is that for some spell heighten is advantageous, like enlarge and widen are for the right spells.For someone that routinely uses ranged touch spells widen is useless.
While most of the time spells of the right level are better than lower-level spells heightened to the same level, that isn't always true.
Depending on the stile of play, highten can be a boon or a wasrted feat, as any other feat.
^Or it can even be a feat tax for something else that you then figure out how to get some use out of (I know some things have it as a prerequisite, although I can't remember which ones off the top of my head).
There's preferred spell which has heighten spell as a prereq; preferred spell isn't actually terrible but I'm not sure it's worth two feats unless you have a house rule which gives you extra feats.
I'm curious as to what style of game Diego refers to that would make heighten spell good. It's not obvious to me.
There's preferred spell which has heighten spell as a prereq; preferred spell isn't actually terrible but I'm not sure it's worth two feats unless you have a house rule which gives you extra feats.
I'm curious as to what style of game Diego refers to that would make heighten spell good. It's not obvious to me.
I've made extensive use out of Heighten Spell in PFS (Heightened Continual Flame) but mainly, as you say for Preferred Spell. I no longer prepare Dispel Magic since it isn't always useful, but when you need it your REALLY need it.
Continuing this tangent, I allow people to craft without Item Creation feats. The DC is significantly higher and they can't ignore other prereqs, and they can't alter items created by other people. Item Creation feats allow you do alter other people's items and lower the DC.
There is actually a related feat which unlocks crafting for noncasters: Master Craftsman
|
|
I have been mulling over this response and can only come to the conclusion that it doesn't really make sense. Talking about no free lunches is really only useful for real world discussion about entropy or economics. AFAICT your argument is 'X does what it does and making it more powerful is letting it do something it doesn't already do, which is bad'. Is this a correct understanding of your position?
As I said, because you are giving a free gift to the guy that is taking the metamagic feat.
It is like asking why when you get a weapon proficiency you don't get weapon focus with that weapon or class of weapons.If that isn't a reason for you and you are the GM, the spellcasters in your group will be happy.
With your change you are increasing the DC of all the spells with a metamagic by 1-4 points, so making spellcaster more powerful a no cost.
Essentially you are giving the finger to the martial characters.
Not a nice thing to do.
I've never seen Dazing Spell in action, but it strikes me as more an exception where my proposed change might be a bit much rather than typical for metamagic.As pointed out, metamagiced spells are rarely any better than, or even as good as, an actual spell of a given level.No, heightened spells are rarely better than spells of the 'target' spell level. The same is not true for other metamagic feats!
The last thing Pathfinder needs is a Dazing Fireball with the DC of a 6th level spell.
If you use your proposed change and your players are a bit competent you will it in use, and much more.
Ditto.
I'm curious as to what style of game Diego refers to that would make heighten spell good. It's not obvious to me.
Both you and Arv have already decided that increasing the DC of a spell is almost useless. I disagree, but unless we spend a few weeks doing a mathematical analysis of the effect of the increased DC and looking all the spells that can benefit from that we are only giving opinions.
My opinion is that, especially at high level, there aren't that many good SoD or SoS spells, wile there are several middle level spells that will still be useful with the increased DC.
For save DC purposes persistent spell makes heightened spell obsolete. Persistent is a +2 spell level metamagic which gives the equivalent of a +3 to +4 save DC most of the time. It's still only OK, not amazing at making low level spells useful at higher levels. Because all the spell lists I can think of have better spells at high levels than at low or mid levels, even the druid!
To go a bit more in depth in Persistent Spell vs Heighten Spell OR in combination: Suppose an enemy saves on 11 or better (50% chance) against your vanilla spell, but you have up to 4 levels of Heighten Spell that you could boost it. If you go with Persistent Spell (uses 2 levels), that cuts their chances to 25%. If you go with 2 levels of Heighten Spell, that cuts their chances to 40%. If you go with 4 levels of Heighten Spell, that cuts their chances to 30%. So far, Persistent Spell is running way ahead in performance . . . but if you combine them for Persistent Spell (still uses 2 levels) + 2 levels of Heighten Spell, that cuts their chances to 16%. Some synergy, but not the greatest. If you could do Doubly Persistent Spell (4 levels), that would cut their chances to 1/16 = 6.25% if it multiplied the rolls they have to pass or to 1/8 = 12.5% (which is still a bit better than Persistent Spell + 2 levels of Heighten Spell) if it just added another one (which would probably be closer to balanced), but you can't actually do that.
But suppose they are not in the middle of the Save zone, but near one end? Suppose they save against your vanilla spell only on a 16 or better (25% chance)? If you go with 2 levels of Heighten Spell, that cuts their chances to 15%. If you go with 4 levels of Heighten Spell, that cuts their chances to 5% (and more levels wouldn't help). But if you go with Persistent Spell, that cuts their chances to 1/16 = 6.25% -- much more efficient than 4 levels of Heighten Spell. But what if you REALLY want to make sure they have almost no chance of a Save? If you go with Persistent Spell + 2 levels of Heighten Spell, that cuts their chances to 2.25% -- you CAN'T make their chances that bad with any number of levels of Heighten Spell alone. If Doubly Persistent Spell was a thing, that would cut their chances to 1/256 = 0.390625% if it multiplied unfavorable rerolls, or to 1.5625% if it just added another unfavorable reroll.
And what about towards the other end of the Save zone? They save on a 6 or better (75% chance). Well, generally you shouldn't be using a spell that allows a Save in such a situation, but what if it is your last chance to avoid a TPK? Desperate times call for desperate measures. If you could only put in 2 levels of Heighten Spell, that cuts their chances to 65%; if you can put in 4 levels of Heighten Spell, that cuts their chances to 55%. Persistent Spell by itself cuts their chances to 56.25%; Persistent Spell + 2 levels of Heighten Spell cuts their chances to 42.25% The hypothetical Doubly Persistent Spell would cut their chances to 31.640625% if it multiplied unfavorable rerolls, or to 42.1875% if it only added an unfavorable reroll -- the latter comes out almost the same as the combination, but the combination is something you can actually do Rules As Written.
Okay, since we've gotten this far, what about REALLY DESPERATE TIMES CALL FOR REALLY DESPERATE MEASURES, and they Save on a 2 or better (95%, which is the best that a plain Save can be, assuming that they haven't gotten their own Fortune effect, Spell Resistance, or Immunity after getting so far as to get their Save to be that good)? If you can only put in 2 levels of Heighten Spell, that cuts their chances to 85%, while if you can put in 4 levels of Heighten Spell, that cuts their chances to 75%. Persistent Spell by itself cuts their chances to 90.25%, while the mythical (but not Mythic) Doubly Persistent Spell cuts their chances to 81.450625% if it multiplies unfavorable rerolls, or to 85.7375% if it only adds another unfavorable reroll. Uh oh -- Heighten Spell is actually ahead here! Persistent Spell + 2 levels of Heighten Spell cuts their chances to 72.25%, which is just a hair better than 4 levels of Heighten Spell.
So the moral is: Situations do exist where Heighten Spell is more effective against an enemy's Save than Persistent Spell, but if you are in one of those situations, you are in REALLY DOOP PEEP.
Blasters get a bad rap, but an optimized blaster kills every APL appropriate enemy in the game in a single round or two. Usually without Heighten, although picking Heighten up for punching through Globe of Invulnerability is probably smart.
It's not so much giving them heighten for free on all metamagics will make many casters vastly stronger than lesser casters(It probably will and is kind of excessive but), but that it will let them completely curbstomp encounters even more than they already do.
And typically, a metamagic'd damage spell IS better than it's higher level counterpart. A 9th level Wizard generally would rather cast an Empowered Fireball(13d6) over Cone of Cold(9d6). The only time a higher level damage spell is better is if you hit the cap and even then Intensify Spell keeps it relevant. Fireball is also just straight up the best damage spell in the game because it gets access to stuff like Magical Lineage.
So with a bit of optimization you have...
Crossblooded(Draconic/Orc) Sorcerer 1/Exploiter Wizard X
School Understanding nets you the Admixture Evoker goodies.
Crossblooded(Draconic/Orc) and Blood Havoc nets you +3 per damage die of your evocation spells.
Magical Lineage
Magical Knack
Spell Focus Evocation
Spell Specialization(Fireball)
I could show more but I think this more than makes the point.
Blast away at 10th level with a 5th level Fireball that is Empowered and Intensified for 18d6+54(or 117 damage on average)DC21 Reflex.
For control casters, a Persistent Slow is extremely effective into the late game and Glitterdust is always useful. There are lots of useful low levels spells that could use a heighten, persistent or both.
So yeah. Casters really don't need free heighten.